Quantitative muscle MRI displays clinically relevant myostructural abnormalities in long-term ICU-survivors: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data on ICU-survivors reveal persisting sequalae and a reduced quality-of-life even after years. Major complaints are neuromuscular dysfunction due to Intensive care unit acquired weakness (ICUAW). Quantitative MRI (qMRI) protocols can quantify muscle alterations in contrast to standard qualitative MRI-protocols. METHODS: Using qMRI, the aim of this study was to analyse persisting myostructural abnormalities in former ICU patients compared to controls and relate them to clinical assessments. The study was conducted as a cohort/case-control study. Nine former ICU-patients and matched controls were recruited (7 males; 54.8y ± 16.9; controls: 54.3y ± 11.1). MRI scans were performed on a 3T-MRI including a mDTI, T2 mapping and a mDixonquant sequence. Water T2 times, fat-fraction and mean values of the eigenvalue (λ1), mean diffusivity (MD), radial diffusivity (RD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) were obtained for six thigh and seven calf muscles bilaterally. Clinical assessment included strength testing, electrophysiologic studies and a questionnaire on quality-of-life (QoL). Study groups were compared using a multivariate general linear model. qMRI parameters were correlated to clinical assessments and QoL questionnaire using Pearson´s correlation. RESULTS: qMRI parameters were significantly higher in the patients for fat-fraction (p < 0.001), water T2 time (p < 0.001), FA (p = 0.047), MD (p < 0.001) and RD (p < 0.001). Thighs and calves showed a different pattern with significantly higher water T2 times only in the calves. Correlation analysis showed a significant negative correlation of muscle strength (MRC sum score) with FA and T2-time. The results were related to impairment seen in QoL-questionnaires, clinical testing and electrophysiologic studies. CONCLUSION: qMRI parameters show chronic next to active muscle degeneration in ICU survivors even years after ICU therapy with ongoing clinical relevance. Therefore, qMRI opens new doors to characterize and monitor muscle changes of patients with ICUAW. Further, better understanding on the underlying mechanisms of the persisting complaints could contribute the development of personalized rehabilitation programs.

Systematic Review on Pain-Related Outcome Domains After Sternotomy: A First Step Toward the Development of a Core Outcome Set.

OBJECTIVES: Pain after surgery has a major impact on acute and long-term recovery and quality of life, but its management is often insufficient. To enhance the quality of research and to allow for better comparability between studies, it is important to harmonize outcomes for assessing the efficacy and effectiveness of pain management interventions after surgery. As a first step in developing a core outcome set, this study aimed to systematically search for outcome domains assessed in research regarding acute pain management after sternotomy as an example of a typically painful surgical procedure. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. Eligibility criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials and observational trials targeting pain management after sternotomy in adults in the acute postoperative setting (≤2 weeks). After duplicate removal and title and abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers, study characteristics and outcome domains were identified, which were extracted from full texts and summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Of 1350 studies retrieved by database searching, 156 studies were included for full-text extraction. A total of 80 different outcome domains were identified: pain intensity, analgesic consumption, physiological function, and adverse events were the most frequent ones. Outcome domains were often not explicitly reported, and the combination of domains and assessment tools was heterogeneous. The choice of outcomes is commonly made within clinicians; patients' perspectives are not considered. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variety of commonly applied outcome domains, the nonexplicit wording, and the heterogeneous combination of the domains indicating treatment benefit demonstrate the need for harmonization of outcomes assessing perioperative pain management after surgery.

[Anesthesia management in microsurgical reconstructions]. / Anästhesiologisches Management bei mikrochirurgischen Rekonstruktionen.

Microsurgical procedures for construction of anastomoses present new challenges for anesthetists in the perioperative setting. Despite their increasing importance, so far no perioperative management guidelines for these patients existed. Anesthetists can influence the success of surgery (e. g. successful perfusion of a flap) via an optimal preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative approach. Patients should be carefully evaluated preoperatively for increased risks to avoid poor postoperative outcomes. Perioperatively, the choice of anesthetic procedure as well as the management of fluid infusion, blood glucose, temperature and blood transfusion are of great importance. Adequate analgesia as well as strict control should be performed as soon as possible postoperatively, preferably in a surveillance unit to detect and treat any complications as early as possible.

Influence of transcutaneous spinal stimulation on human LTP-like pain amplification. A randomized, double-blind study in volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) has been proven to affect nociceptive signal processing. We designed a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study to investigate whether tsDCS applied before or after inducing long-term potentiation-(LTP)-like hyperalgesia may decrease nociceptive sensitivity. METHODS: In healthy volunteers, tsDCS (2.5mA, 15min) was applied to the thoracic spine prior (n=14) or immediately following (n=12) electrical high-frequency stimulation (HFS) to the thigh, inducing hyperalgesia. Mechanical and electrical perception were assessed before HFS stimulation and at three time points following HFS stimulation (all within 90min of HFS). Subjects took part in three separate sessions to test effects of anodal, cathodal, or sham tsDCS. RESULTS: Within 60minHFS led to unilateral changes on the conditioned side: mechanical pain thresholds tended to decrease and electrical detection thresholds significantly decreased (p<0.001); pain ratings measured using the numerical rating scale (NRS) increased for electrical stimuli (p<0.01) and two categories of mechanical stimuli ("Light(8-64mN)": p=ns; "Heavy(128-512mN)": p<0.01). Irrespective of stimulation order or polarity, tsDCS could not influence nociceptive sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Hyperalgesia was adequately induced, but tsDCS had no effect on HFS-induced sensitization. SIGNIFICANCE: While tsDCS has been shown to affect pain measures, our results suggest irrespective of time of stimulation or polarity that tsDCS may be less effective in modulating pain in a sensitized state in healthy subjects.

Transcutaneous spinal DC stimulation reduces pain sensitivity in humans.

Non-invasive approaches to pain management are needed to manage patient pain escalation and to providing sufficient pain relief. Here, we evaluate the potential of transcutaneous spinal direct current stimulation (tsDCS) to modulate pain sensitivity to electrical stimuli and mechanical pinpricks in 24 healthy subjects in a sham-controlled, single-blind study. Pain ratings to mechanical pinpricks and electrical stimuli were recorded prior to and at three time points (0, 30, and 60min) following 15min of anodal tsDCS (2.5mA, "active" electrode centered over the T11 spinous process, return electrode on the left posterior shoulder). Pain ratings to the pinpricks of the highest forces tested (128, 256, 512mN) were reduced at 30min and 60min following anodal tsDCS. These findings demonstrate that pain sensitivity in healthy subjects can be suppressed by anodal tsDCS and suggest that tsDCS may provide a non-invasive tool to manage mechanically-induced pain.

Ultrasound compared with nerve stimulation guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02-1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0-10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: -0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04-0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution.

Is intraoperative dexmedetomidine a new option for postoperative pain treatment? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

In the present meta-analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with placebo or opioids for acute postoperative pain treatment in adults undergoing surgery. The meta-analysis was performed according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled trials investigating perioperative administration of DEX were included. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals [CI]) and for continuous outcomes mean differences (MD; 95% CI) were calculated. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials including 1420 patients were finally included. Patients treated with DEX reported lower postoperative pain intensity (MD1h postoperatively: -1.59U (numeric rating scale: 0 to 10) 95% CI: -2.37 to -0.82; P=.000001) and showed a lower postoperative opioid consumption (MD24h postoperatively: -17.24mg; 95% CI: -24.38 to -10.10; P=.00001) compared with placebo. Additionally, the DEX group showed a lower RR for opioid-related adverse events (e.g. RRNausea (postanesthesia care unit): 0.66; 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.02; P=.06). The most common adverse event in patients treated with DEX was intraoperative bradycardia with a RR of 2.66 (RR: 2.66; 95% CI: 1.54 to 4.58; P=.0004) compared with placebo. There is evidence that DEX administration leads to lower postoperative pain, reduced opioid consumption, and a lower risk for opioid-related adverse events. The comparison of DEX vs opioids for postoperative pain treatment is less clear due to limited data. The most common adverse event was intraoperative bradycardia after DEX administration. Therefore cautions in patients at risk are warranted, and large trials focusing on long-term outcomes after intraoperative DEX use are needed.